AppendixI. Case Study: The GazaBeach
Incident

On the afternoon of June 9, 2006, an explosion on a northern Gaza beach killed seven
members of the Ghalya family and wounded dozens more Palestinian civilians.[237]
The IDF, many journalists, and human rights organizations, including Human
Rights Watch researchers who were in Gaza
the next day, conducted inquiries into the incident.[238]
Human Rights Watch has called for an independent investigation of the incident.[239]
This chapter lays out the findings of Human Rights Watch's research and its
reasons for concluding that an Israeli artillery shell caused the explosion.

Eyewitness Accounts

According to eyewitnesses, the Ghalya family had gone to the
beach earlier that day to have lunch and to swim.[240]
They decided to cut short their stay when artillery shells started landing on
the beach in the distance. After a shell fell 300 to 500 meters away, `Ali `Isa
Ghalya, the father, started to gather his two wives and their children near the
road to the beach. They collected their belongings and called a taxi. When two
more shells fell about 150 meters away, the men were sitting in one group on
the beach, and the women in another. A fourth shell-the one that caused the
casualties according to witnesses-exploded between the two groups but closer to
the women.[241]
Eleven-year-old Huda saw that her mother was injured. "My mother told me to
escape," Huda told Human Rights Watch at the wake organized for her deceased
family members. "I went to my father and then I started screaming."[242]

-

Her older brother Ayham, 17, said, "After the third one, we
gathered in one spotwaiting for the car. When the fourth shell exploded, I was
beside my father. He was injured and I started giving care to him."[243]
Ayham's father, `Ali `Isa, died before reaching the hospital.[244]

The family members killed by the fourth shell were: `Ali
`Isa Ghalya, 49; Ra'issa Ghalya, 35; `Alia Ghalya, 17; Ilham Ghalya, 15; Sabrin
Ghalya, 4; Hanadi Ghalya, 15 months; and Haitham Ghalya, 5 months. Several
others were severely injured. Rahia Ghalya suffered a "liver laceration and
multiple organ ruptures," according to Dr. Jum`a al-Saqqa of GazaCity's ShifaHospital;
she was subsequently evacuated to an Israeli hospital.[245]
Several days after the incident 22-year-old Amani, who lost an arm and suffered
severe internal injuries, and 7-year-old Latifa, who suffered brain damage,
remained in the intensive care unit at ShifaHospital.
Hamdia, `Ali's other wife who lost four daughters in the explosion, suffered
multiple compound factures to her arms and shrapnel wounds in her abdomen and
upper leg.[246]

The Azanin family also suffered casualties in the attack.
Hani Radwan Azanin, a 31-year-old taxi driver from Beit Hanoun, had taken his
two daughters, 7-year-old Dima and 4-year-old Nagham, to the beach around 2:30
p.m. After the first and second shells fell, hundreds of beachgoers started
running for the parking area. "I took my two daughters, carried them," he told
Human Rights Watch. "We reached the car. I opened it, put my daughters inside
[on the back seat]. When searching [our] stuff, I found I was missing my cell
phone. I went back to where I was sitting and didn't find it. It took about two
minutes." Then the shell that killed the Ghalyas exploded. "I found pieces of
people scattered. I found my car damaged, penetrated by shrapnel. I looked at
my daughters and found them screaming, with blood from the back and the front,"
Azanin said. He drove the car until the engine died several kilometers away. He
then loaded his children into an ambulance and went to the Kamal `UdwanHospital
in Beit Lahiya.[247]
Doctors extracted shrapnel from the girls during surgery.

Mahmud Abu Rabia, 19, was on the beach with 14 members of his
family during the Gaza
beach explosion on June
9, 2006. The blast caused his intestines to spill out. Six days
later he was recuperating at his Beit Lahiya home.

2006 Bonnie Docherty/Human
Rights Watch

Sayid Abu Rabia, a 46-year-old construction worker, had
taken 14 members of his family to the beach that day because the children
wanted to go. As he was preparing for prayers, the first shell fell. "When the
first shell hitwe left the car behind, we left our cell phones, and ran away,"
Abu Rabia said.[248]
He ran holding the hands of his sons Ahmad, 15, and Harun, 11. When the shell
that killed the Ghalyas exploded, he was about 20 meters away. Ahmad suffered
injuries to his right foot, leg, and abdomen.[249]
His wife Nada said she saw their 19-year-old son Mahmud, fall to the ground.
"He saw his intestines coming out and started holding them. He asked, 'What
shall I do?'" she said. "God brought a man with a cart and horse to carry my
son."[250]
She loaded him on the cart and they all set off for the hospital. Meanwhile Abu
Rabia's eldest son, 25-year-old Khamsa, went back to find his crying siblings.
Both injured boys returned home from the hospital within six days after the
explosion; Mahmud remained bedridden.

Rescuers described to Human Rights Watch the scene they
found on the beach that afternoon. Twenty-eight-year-old Muhammad Sawarka came
to give aid to the victims until ambulances arrived at the scene. "The legs, we
could see inside [them]. The abdomen, we could see the intestines [coming] out.
I found a lost [3-year-old] child. The parents didn't come. I gave him to
someone to try to find his parents," he said.[251]
He said he found the hand of a small child and saw an infant dead inside of a
baby carriage, likely Haitham Ghalya.[252]

Persons who were on the beach that day described the
incident to Human Rights Watch and provided some clues to the cause of the
explosion. They reported hearing or seeing three to five explosions coming
increasingly closer to the place where members of the Ghalya family were
killed. The IDF stated that it launched eight shells toward an area on the
beach "routinely used for rocket launching" between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m.-six from
artillery across the border in Israel
and two from an Israeli warship.[253]
Several witnesses who were on the beach said they heard the whine of incoming
shells. Sayid Abu Rabia said, "We have experience with these shells. There is a
sound, then it hits. I heard the sound [of the shell that killed the Ghalyas].
I have heard that sound before."[254]
Isma`il Ghanim, a 20-year-old worker who was close enough to the incident to be
injured himself, said, "I don't think [the explosion that killed the Ghalyas]
was from [an unexploded shell in] the ground because I heard it coming. I'm
familiar with them."[255]

Analysis

Although the IDF acknowledges it
was firing artillery in the area that day, it takes the position (see below)
that the explosion responsible for killing the Ghalya family on June 9 was not
an artillery shell that Israel
fired that day and was probably not an IDF artillery shell at all. After
investigating the incident, however, as described below, Human Rights Watch
concluded that the deadly explosion was caused by a 155mm Israeli artillery
shell. The shrapnel, crater, and injuries all point to this weapon as the
cause.

Three scenarios could explain the shell's explosion on the
beach that afternoon. First, it could have been a live shell that exploded on
the beach as it struck. Second, it could have been an unexploded artillery
shell fired earlier that lay in the sand before being detonated by the
reverberations of nearby shelling that afternoon-the IDF had shelled the beach
area on previous occasions. These two scenarios are the most likely because of
the nature of the injuries and the fact that the IDF acknowledges that it
shelled other parts of the beach that day. A third hypothesis, advanced by the
IDF, is that Palestinian militants may have taken an unexploded IDF shell they
found elsewhere and rigged it up as an improvised explosive device (IED) that
then exploded, with fatal consequences, on June 9. The IDF suggested that
militants might have placed an IED on the beach in order to thwart an IDF
landing from the sea.[256]
Major General Kalifi did not suggest, however, why the Palestinians might fear
an amphibious landing when the IDF has unrestricted access across the 51 kilometer
Israel/Gaza land border. The nature of the injuries casts further doubt on the
IED explanation.

Shrapnel

The shrapnel from the incident that Human Rights Watch
examined in Gaza
points to a 155mm artillery shell as the source of the blast that killed the
seven Ghalya family members. Human Rights Watch examined shrapnel from four
sources. First, it found an approximately 15-centimeter piece of shrapnel near
a crater on the beach itself. It was stamped "155mm." The fact that it had not
yet oxidized indicated that it was fresh and not from an earlier attack. A week
later, the shell fragment had begun to oxidize.

Second, Human Rights Watch found a small copper shell
fragment deep in the back of the front seat of Hani Azanin's car. The explosion
on the beach that killed the Ghalyas had seriously damaged the vehicle. The
blast blew out its windows, and shrapnel pierced the trunk and doors. Fragments
that penetrated the car left holes in the seats. By the time Human Rights Watch
talked to Hani Azanin, three days after the incident, he had cleaned the car of
human flesh and most of the shrapnel.[257]
The copper fragment found by Human Rights Watch definitely came from the blast
that killed the Ghalyas because this was the blast that caused all the damage
to the Azanin car. In all likelihood it came from the copper ring of an
artillery shell.

The third piece of shrapnel evidence came from the body of Mahmud
Abu Rabia, the 19-year-old-who suffered severe internal injuries. This piece,
covered in blood, was a range setting for the timing of an artillery shell
fuze. Doctors at the Kamal `UdwanHospital gave it to Mahmud's
father, Sayid, who showed it to Human Rights Watch.[258]

Finally, the explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team of the
Palestinian police found dozens of pieces of shrapnel in the crater of the
explosion that killed the Ghalyas. "From our experience and analysis, the
[shell fragments] we found belong to 155mm Israeli artillery. It is used by
artillery every day in northern Gaza,"
said Gen. Salah Abu `Azum, head of the EOD team.[259]
He and his staff had matched up each fragment with a part of a 155mm shell. For
comparison, General Abu `Azum also showed Human Rights Watch Qassam-type rocket
fragments, which are visibly much thinner. The EOD team, which was trained in
the United States and Europe, indicated it had a high level of familiarity with
these and other types of munitions.

Artillery Shell Craters

The crater of the fatal explosion supports the view that a
155mm artillery shell caused the blast. Human Rights Watch examined the crater,
as well as two other fresh craters, during its investigation of the beach the
day after the attack. It was about 1.5 meters in diameter, the same size as
older craters from previous IDF shelling of the beach, and only slightly
shallower than those found at the sites of other artillery strikes on soil,
probably due to the compactable sand. The crater also had a powder in it
consistent with that found in craters caused by 155mm artillery shells. While
the powder in the many old craters in the area had grayed over time, the powder
in the crater of June 9 was bright white, indicating its freshness. If an
unexploded shell from a previous incident caused the explosion, the crater
would likely have been similar.

Injuries

The civilians on the beach suffered severe upper body
injuries, pointing to a heavy weapon like a 155mm shell. Dr. Nabil al-Shawa of ShifaHospital
said, "There was massive soft tissue injury. All of the patients are suffering
from multiple injuries, massive destruction of bone, muscle, and skin, chest
wounds, intestines outside."[260]
Another doctor at the ShifaHospital said he removed
shell fragments that were two centimeters thick, which is consistent with the
thickness of a 155mm shell.[261]

The location of the injuries also provides a clue to their
cause. Doctors reported multiple injuries to the abdomen, arms, and head. There
were also some leg injuries, but these were minor. This suggests the injuries
were not caused by an IED.

An artillery shell, when set off perpendicular (or close to
perpendicular) to the ground releases a cone of explosion that travels upwards.[262]
This cone causes primarily upper body injuries. An unexploded shell from a
previous incident, depending on its angle of impact, would also probably be
perpendicular. This pattern strongly suggests that the shell was not used as
part of an IED, which would most likely be buried horizontally because it is
easier to roll a shell into a shallow hole than dig a much deeper hole and
lower it in.

"If we want to assume a kid played [with an IED], he
[including his lower body] would have been torn to pieces. Where is that child?
No one was shattered into pieces [that way]," said EOD chief General Abu `Azum.[263]
An IED would cause lower body injuries even if it were triggered by the IDF
artillery barrage further down the beach that day. The IDF suggested that if
artillery fragments were found, this could be because Palestinian armed groups
made an IED using an old artillery shell. While Palestinian armed groups are known
to make and use IEDs, the Palestinian EOD team said they had never seen one
made out of such a shell.[264]
The IDF did not indicate that it knew of any precedent for this sort of
Palestinian IED, on the beach or anywhere. In addition, it would be unusual to
have an isolated IED buried in the sand given the extremely unlikely prospect
of an Israeli sea invasion.

Timing

The timing of the explosion also supports the conclusion
that the blast was caused directly by Israeli artillery shelling, either from
that day or from an unexploded shell fired earlier and set off by the impact of
the shelling that day. It is also consistent with the theory that Israeli
artillery shelling set off a Palestinian IED, but as mentioned above, there is
no plausible reason for a Palestinian armed group to place such a weapon on the
beach. Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, head of the IDF's investigative team, reported
that the IDF fired six artillery shells plus two naval shells at a beach in
northern Gaza between 4:31 and 4:50 p.m.[265]
According to hospital log books, the first patient arrived at Kamal `Udwan
Hospital at 5:05 p.m. Given that it takes about twenty minutes to drive from
the hospital to the beach and back, the blast likely occurred within the
timeframe of the Israeli shelling.

Digital data supports this chronology. The hospital usually
runs hematology tests shortly after a patient arrives. A computerized printout
of a blood test for one of the Azanin girls reports that her test took place at
16:12 (or 4:12 p.m.).[266]
Surprised by the fact that this preceded any reported shelling of the beach,
Human Rights Watch re-visited the hospital and discovered that the staff had
not adjusted that machine to reflect daylight savings time. Thus there is
written and digital evidence that the Azanin girl had arrived at the hospital
between 5:05 and 5:12 p.m. The times of admittance and the blood test indicate
that the fatal blast occurred during the time of the Israeli shelling that day.

IDF Explanations

The IDF's view of the incident differs significantly from
Human Rights Watch's findings. On the day of the incident, June 9, the IDF
expressed regret, called a halt to all artillery fire, and initiated an
investigation.[267]
Two days later, on June 11, the IDF announced that it had ruled out the possibility
that the fatal strike had been caused by IDF air or naval fire.[268]
Then, on June 14, five days after the incident, Minister of Defense Amir Peretz
said, "We have gotten our hands on enough evidence to prove that as we
suspected, the attempt to label this incident as an Israeli incident was simply
false. The facts that have accumulated confirm that the incident was not caused
by the actions of Israeli forces."[269]

Major General Kalifi, the investigative team leader, told
Human Rights Watch that based on ballistic analysis, surveillance videos, and
shrapnel, he concluded that an Israeli shell launched that afternoon could not
have caused the explosion. He said, "Without any doubt and absolutely no
question it could not have been the result of artillery fired on that day.
Information until now negates the result of artillery fire."[270]
Kalifi made clear that this conclusion was based exclusively on information
assembled by the IDF and excluded all evidence from other sources, including
Human Rights Watch.[271]
He argued first that another type of weapon killed the civilians on the beach.
When presented with Human Rights Watch's evidence during an interview, however,
he modified his hypothesis and conceded that the cause of the blast may have
been a 155mm shell, but then argued that Palestinians may have placed it there
as an IED or that it was a dud Israeli shell that was set off by the IDF
barrage that afternoon.

Kalifi said that the IDF fired more than 80 shells in the
general vicinity but outside the specific beach area on the morning of June 9.
It fired an additional six 155mm shells and two 76mm naval shells at what he
characterized as a known rocket launch site at the beach between 4:31 and 4:50
p.m. "At a distance of 300 meters from the family was a launching ground
commonly used for launching Qassams," he said. "Those areas are targeted while
Qassams are being fired from them as well as in a situation [in which] we
receive advance information they will be used." International humanitarian
experts who monitor security developments in Gaza told Human Rights Watch that
there were two sites in the beach area that Palestinian armed groups have used
to fire rockets, one about 500 meters and the other about one kilometer from
where the Ghalyas were killed.[272]
While there is no specific rule saying how close armed forces can place
military objects to civilian areas, the launching of rockets 300 meters from a
popular Palestinian beach, if true, suggests that the armed groups may not have
taken all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population. This would
also be the case if the launch site were 500 meters from an area frequented by
civilians.

The IDF did not clarify if the shells it fired toward the
beach that day targeted specific launchers as opposed to areas from which it
might have believed a rocket launcher would be deployed. The Ground Operations
Command's Southern Command Maj. Gen. Yoav Gallant said, "We fired towards open
areas and took the necessary distance precautions. We fired towards the ruins
of Dugit and westward of them-an area which is routinely used for rocket
launching. The Palestinian population was warned to keep clear of this area."
He continued, "The IDF today attacked two terror cells-one immediately after a
rocket launching, the second as it was on its way for such a launching. The
second was a Hamas terror cell which in the past days has launched a number of
Qassam rocket that hit Sderot."[273]

Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said on June 10, the day
after the incident, "I remind everyone that the artillery was in response in
the launching of Qassam rockets and also the fact that Hamas claimed
responsibility for all the rockets fired at Sderot since yesterday till this
afternoon. The involvement is not only limited to the lower ranks but also
higher ranks."[274]

Major General Kalifi said the IDF fired a shell at an area
600 meters away from the fatal blast to "calibrate" the artillery. Because IDF
radar did not detect this first shell, the same artillery piece fired another
shell of the same type towards the same target. According to Khalfi, another
two shells were then fired with the "same gun and data." These second, third,
and fourth shells landed within 60 meters of each other, he said. The same M109
artillery piece fired the fifth and sixth shells at a different target. Kalifi
said these last two shells landed 200 meters away from the fatal blast. This
meant, he said, that the chance that their shrapnel could have injured the
civilians was "one in a thousand or in ten thousand." As noted earlier, the
lethal radius of a 155mm shell is between 50 and 150 meters and the injury
radius between 100 and 300 meters. That still leaves the first 155mm artillery
shell, the one that Kalifi said the radar failed to detect. According to the
IDF's calculations, he said, the statistical probability that this first shell
was the fatal one was "one in a billion." He did not explain to Human Rights
Watch the IDF's methodology for reaching this conclusion. His explanation also
does not account for witness testimony that the first shell was not the fatal
one.

Several IDF surveillance videos were the second main source
the IDF presented to support its version of the incident. The IDF publicized
three videos of the beach, all of which Human Rights Watch viewed. The first
video, which Major General Kalifi said was filmed from a gunship from 4:54 to
4:57 p.m., showed "no excitement in behavior...no signs of panic." Kalifi said
the evident calm showed that the Israeli shells fired between 4:31 and 4:50 had
not caused the incident. The second video, from a different surveillance
camera, he said, showed a convoy of vehicles arriving at 5:15 p.m. Kalifi said
these were ambulances, suggesting that the explosion occurred sometime after
the last Israeli shell exploded-according to him, at 4:50 p.m. The third video,
from a third camera, shows a lot of activity at the beach at 5:30 p.m., which
Kalifi attributed to the chaos of the explosion. If this were the case, it
would indicate that the explosion had taken place well after the last Israeli
shell of that afternoon had landed.

All of the video evidence is fuzzy and difficult to
interpret, but other hypotheses are possible. For example, the beach could have
been empty at the time of the first clip because people had fled to the parking
lot; the convoy of vehicles in the second video could have been journalists and
Palestinian police, who raced to the scene after the incident; and the chaos of
the third video could have been the journalists who flocked to the scene after
the explosion. The IDF also did not release the video of the whole time period,
including the alleged time of the blast.

Finally, Major General Kalifi said that shrapnel about one
centimeter long, removed from the body of a victim who had been transferred to
an Israeli hospital, was not from a 155mm artillery shell. "What we can say is
it wasn't from a shell. It was not from anything produced in a factory for
armaments, but it was from a piece of a munition," Kalifi said, suggesting it
could have come from a homemade weapon. "From analysis of the type of alloy and
the remains of an explosive, we can say for sure it was not from a 155mm
[shell]." Other things besides shell fragments can penetrate a human body as a
result of an explosion. He was not willing to include in his investigation the
fragments found in victims by Palestinian doctors and turned over to the
Palestinian president's office: "It is no problem to take a piece of 155mm
shrapnel and to dip it into the blood of one of the injured and present it as if
from the body. I'm not willing to accept it, based on experience. Major General
Kalifi also said that Palestinians "have no problem lying."

Human Rights Watch believes an independent investigation
enjoying the cooperation of the IDF and Palestinian authorities, and with
unimpeded access to relevant information and evidence they possess, would be
the best way to clarify what happened. Palestinian officials expressed their
willingness to cooperate: a June 15, 2006, letter from the office of President Abbas
says the Palestinian Authority has "no objections to a neutral international
investigative committee to investigate" the incident.[275]
"We welcome anyone to make an investigation," said PA spokesman Ghazi Hamad.[276]

The Israeli government has not supported an investigation. While
Minister of Defense Amir Peretz left the door open, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen.
Dan Halutz told reporters, with respect to allowing an independent inquiry,
"What we are doing is very, very, very professional. We don't need the assistance
of anyone."[277]

The availability of significant evidence that the IDF has
not examined or taken into account casts serious doubt on its conclusions and
underscores the need for an independent investigation of the incident.

[237]
The body of an eighth person, Muhammad Yusif Junaid, subsequently washed up
near the beach, and initial reports suggested that Junaid was also killed by
the same blast. According to the Palestine Monitoring Group, a body affiliated
with the Negotiations Affairs Department of the PA, Junaid had been frightened
by Israeli naval attacks and threw himself into the sea, where he drowned. See Palestine Monitoring
Group, Daily Situation Report, 11 June 200612 June 2006, p. 10.

[244]
The 12-year-old son of Ramadan Ghalya (`Ali `Isa Ghalya's brother) lost both
his legs when the IDF shelled a family strawberry field on January 4, 2005, according to
Ramadan Ghalya. See the appeal for financial assistance on behalf of the family
at http://ghaliafamily.brinkster.net/ (accessed on October 25, 2006).

Other IDF sources said the time were 4:30 and 4:51
p.m., but the discrepancy does not change the analysis. See, for example,
"Major General Gallant: 'I Will Not Forfeit the Security of Civilians,'" IDF
press release, June
12, 2006, http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=53142&Pos=1&last=0&bScope=False
(accessed July
31, 2006).

[262]
"[F]or the idealised case of an airburst shell falling perpendicular to the
ground, it can be visualised as a wide-angled cone with the shell's final
position at the apex of the cone." Lt. Col. P.R. Courtney-Green, Ammunition for
the Land Battle (London: Brassey's Limited, 1991), p. 21.

[265]
Human Rights Watch interview with Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, deputy commander of
Ground Forces Headquarters and head of the investigative committee for the
beach incident, IDF, Tel Aviv, June 19, 2006. Other IDF sources said the times
were 4:30 and 4:51 p.m., but this discrepancy does not change the analysis.
See, for example, "Major General Gallant: 'I Will Not Forfeit the Security of
Civilians,'" IDF press release, June 12, 2006, http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=53142&Pos=1&last=0&bScope=False
(accessed July
31, 2006).

[267]
"In Regards to the Incident on the GazaBeach," IDF press
release, June 9,
2006, https://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=53106&Pos=39&last=0&bScople=False
(accessed July 31,
2006).

[268]
"Chief of General Staff: 'We Are Making Every Effort Not to Harm the Innocent,"
IDF press release, June
11, 2006, http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=7&docid=53128&Pos=1&last=0&bScope=False
(accessed August
1, 2006).

[270]
Human Rights Watch interview with Maj. Gen. Meir Kalifi, deputy commander of
Ground Forces Headquarters and head of the investigative committee for the
beach incident, IDF, Tel Aviv, June 19, 2006. Unless otherwise indicated, all
information in this section comes from this interview.

[271]
The IDF spokesperson's office informed Human Rights Watch in an email sent on December 2, 2006
that Maj. Gen. Kalifi's investigation was not yet formally completed because
its conclusions had yet to be presented to all relevant members of the General
Staff.